KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 9 — The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) must explain its decision to take “No Further Action” (NFA) on the 47 charges in Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s Yayasan Akalbudi case, Bukit Gelugor MP and lawyer Ramkarpal Singh has said.

Ramkarpal, who is also DAP’s national legal bureau chairman, questioned the AGC’s NFA decision when the High Court had previously found that there was a prima facie case against Zahid.

In the Yayasan Akalbudi trial, the High Court in January 2022 ordered Zahid to defend himself, as it found that the prosecution had proven that there is a prima facie case against Zahid.

A prima facie case means that the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence to prove its case, which would result in a conviction if an accused person does not rebut and defend himself.

Ramkarpal noted that the High Court’s 2022 finding of a prima facie case against Zahid was made after the trial started in 2019 and with many witnesses having given evidence for the prosecution.

“As such, there can be no doubt that such findings were based on evidence which Zahid was, in law, obliged to rebut until the prosecution applied for an order of Discharge Not Amounting to Acquittal (DNAA) for all the said 47 charges on September 4, 2023,” he said in a press statement issued late last night.

Halfway through Zahid’s defence in the Yayasan Akalbudi case, the prosecution had in September 2023 told the High Court that it would discontinue the trial and asked for a DNAA.

The prosecution listed 11 reasons for the DNAA request including the need for further investigations, and the High Court granted the DNAA on all 47 charges in 2023.

While the DNAA meant the prosecution could bring the same 47 charges against Zahid again, the AGC said yesterday that it had reviewed the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) further investigation’s findings and found there was insufficient evidence to continue the charges against Zahid.

Ramkarpal noted that the AGC’s statement did not mention if it had reviewed the High Court’s 2022 prima facie findings, before the AGC decided on “NFA” for Zahid’s case.

“The AGC’s statement clearly lacks substance and amounts to a mere general statement that it is now satisfied that the matter ought not to be proceeded with,” he claimed, having earlier said that the NFA decision “does not inspire confidence and raises questions over the transparency of investigations into the matter by the AGC”.

“Given the above, the AGC must explain why it is now of the view that the prima facie findings of the High Court against Zahid do not carry any weight, especially when those findings were based on its own evidence led in court,” he said.

Ramkarpal said confidence in the AGC will be further eroded if it fails to give a satisfactory explanation.

Yesterday, the AGC said its NFA decision means that Zahid’s Yayasan Akalbudi case has come to a final termination or to an end.

When asked if the AGC’s NFA decision meant that Zahid would not face the possibility of being charged again in the Yayasan Akalbudi case or if the NFA decision could be reversed in the future, Ramkarpal explained that the DNAA status meant future charges were still possible.

“It’s still DNAA now and so he can be charged again at any time in the future unless his defence team converts the DNAA to a DAA, i.e. discharge amounting to acquittal,” he told Malay Mail.

Yesterday, Zahid’s lead defence lawyer Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik was reported by The Edge as saying that his client will apply to the court for a full acquittal.

A DAA or acquittal would mean that the prosecution cannot bring the same charges against the accused person and the accused person would be free of the charges.

Recommended reading: